By Earle Fox
American Scientific Association Newsletter,
November/December, 1998, page 4
 

Science itself has no conclusions one way or the other about how the world was created. Science is a method for finding out what truth is, not a conclusion about the truth. And so the scientific arena is where all (yes, even the religious) viewpoints are given equal opportunity to express themselves--so that the truth can be discovered. There is nothing anywhere in scientific method that rules out discussion of voodoo, magic, New Age, Christianity, Judaism, secularism, or anything else as possibly containing some kernel of truth. The scientific and academic arena is precisely the place where everything is to be discussed.

 Science itself has no viewpoints. Only scientists have viewpoints, which hopefully they reach by an honest assessment of the evidence at hand. It is both immoral and unscientific for any scientist to inhibit the discussion in favor of his own viewpoint, secular or biblical, on the grounds of "science." That all too common kind of behavior on all sides is precisely why God gave us the scientific method--to keep the discussion open. "Come let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18). Thus an inquisition in the name of "science" is no more righteous than an inquisition in the name of God. God forbids both, and so does any honest scientist.

 Therefore, for the ACLU to claim that on scientific grounds certain viewpoints are not to be discussed in class for their merit is simply nonsense and amounts to the establishment of yet another inquisition. Such things are said by people who understand neither science nor religion.

For a ninth grade boy and his father to sue on the grounds that his rights are being violated by having to listen to someone else's religious viewpoint is nonsense.  If he disagrees with a viewpoint expressed, he is welcome to critique it for its merits.  If that was the aim of the Moon Township class, to promote an honest discussion of the views on how the world was formed, then they were in fact already being scientific.  If the boy was harassed by his classmates for being an atheist, or if the teacher allowed that harassment, then that needs to be corrected.

Harassment is neigher Christian nor scientific. But that is quite a different issue from legally disallowing the discussion of "religious" viewpoints on the spurious grounds of either science or the Constitution.

With all due respect to the Supreme Court, their interpretation of the alleged wall between church and state is a direct contradiction of every Supreme Court decision on the subject prior to the mid-1940s:

It is unnecessary for us to consider the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of Deism, or any other form of infidelity.  Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country (Vidal vs. Girard's Executors, 1844, Unanimous decision).

No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is a Christian nation (Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States, 1892)

"The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State.  Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other--hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly.  We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being" (Zorach vs. Clauson, 1952).

The decisions of the Court rendering the state openly hostile to God (which began only in 1962) are poor history, poor law, and poor logic--and therefore poor science.  Honest and informed citizens will work to return our schools back to honest science and respect for each other--where biblical, secular, and other viewpoints can test each other on a level playing field"

Back to Contents Does God Exist?, MayJun01.